I also think if you wanted to, he is still a guy that can be moved based on some of the recent signings. (Boyd gordon at $3 mil? seriosuly? he's never scored 30 point for goodness sakes).

I know tant. I literally did mean "if you could" as in if it were possible. If it is possible to trade Booth.. I'd think about that if there's another move lined up to bring in a more effective player.

But in order to do that you need to find that $5.5-6 mil player. Grabovski may be that type of guy but I still wonder about the wisdom of moving Kesler to the wing such a move would necessitate. Grabovski did well in his defensive matchups but he isn't a Selke winner. Not convinced Grabovski in the end would be any better quality wise though it would be a shakeup.

It's no guarantee. I don't think you necessarily have to move Kesler to the wing as you could potentially slide Grabovski or Schroeder over.. but even then I'm less stuck on the idea that Kesler has to play center than I used to be.

It'd be a fair bit of flexibility though. Grabovski and Schroeder could play together on a soft minutes offensive line with each one taking draws on their strong side, leaving Kesler to take on the tough matchups; Kesler could play on Schroeder's wing (or vice versa) and Grabovski could take on the tough matchups; the team could go with Grabovski, Kesler and Schroeder each centering their own line with Schroeder on the fourth line between a couple of big bruisers.

And of course if/when Kesler goes down the team can still ice three respectable lines.

Anyway I don't think it's realistic.. in fact I started down this road talking about how Grabovski is pretty much the only guy left I'd dump Booth for at this point.

Seems to me that the apparent goal this year of getting the kids icetime while keeping the core intact is to get through the cap crunch and provide a better base from which to work from next season when the cap will skyrocket.

Yeah. And fair enough. I thought before that this offseason would be a real crossroads and barring something like a big free agent signing it would appear that Gillis has made his choice and will hope the existing core still has enough to offer when some of the younger players begin to do more than tread water at the NHL level.

Considering the Canucks lack of cap space, I think they've done rather well.

Weber is a potential value signing who could take another step on a solid veteran blueline under a coach who will more than likely put players in specific roles and situations to get the best out of them. He has the potential to be a Rome like value signing, a 3rd pairing offensive d-man with PP skills. Being right-handed with a booming shot should make him a solid depth addition at the very least.

Richardson is a versatile 4th line player who has experience in a top 9 role and should be easy to move around the roster if and when a couple of the young kids step up. He's probably a better overall player than Lappy but he doesn't have the same size and physicality. The Canucks don't lose much replacing Lappy with Richardson since they have different skills but the key for Vancouver is shedding the reputation with the officials, and moving on from Yappy is one step to doing so.

Ebbett was Tamby 2.0, and Santorelli is Ebbett 2.0. He's bigger and has better hands than Ebbett and should have an easier time filling in on the 3rd line.

I think the Weber signing is an improvement for this team's 6-7 spot compared to Ballard and Alberts playing out of position on the right side of the 3rd D-pair. Santorelli should be an improvement and better insurance option than Ebbett.

Coming out of the first couple of days of free agency the Canucks were able to slightly improve their bottom 6 and 3rd D-pair.

Weber is a potential value signing who could take another step on a solid veteran blueline under a coach who will more than likely put players in specific roles and situations to get the best out of them. He has the potential to be a Rome like value signing, a 3rd pairing offensive d-man with PP skills. Being right-handed with a booming shot should make him a solid depth addition at the very least.

Richardson is a versatile 4th line player who has experience in a top 9 role and should be easy to move around the roster if and when a couple of the young kids step up. He's probably a better overall player than Lappy but he doesn't have the same size and physicality. The Canucks don't lose much replacing Lappy with Richardson since they have different skills but the key for Vancouver is shedding the reputation with the officials, and moving on from Yappy is one step to doing so.

Ebbett was Tamby 2.0, and Santorelli is Ebbett 2.0. He's bigger and has better hands than Ebbett and should have an easier time filling in on the 3rd line.

I think the Weber signing is an improvement for this team's 6-7 spot compared to Ballard and Alberts playing out of position on the right side of the 3rd D-pair. Santorelli should be an improvement and better insurance option than Ebbett.

Coming out of the first couple of days of free agency the Canucks were able to slightly improve their bottom 6 and 3rd D-pair.

Not all that bad.

Do you really think changing our 4C and depth defenseman is going to change anything? Oh wait, Richardson is slotted in as our 3C according to the Canucks. Yikes!

Don't kid yourself, this team has gotten worse. I expect further regression next year, and when a team that didn't win a single playoff game regresses that's not good news for Canucks fans and shouldn't be good news for Mike Gillis's job security.

The_Pauser wrote:Do you really think changing our 4C and depth defenseman is going to change anything? Oh wait, Richardson is slotted in as our 3C according to the Canucks. Yikes!

No, Gillman said he's their 10th forward, and could be the 3rd line C, depending on what happens at camp.

The_Pauser wrote:Don't kid yourself, this team has gotten worse. I expect further regression next year, and when a team that didn't win a single playoff game regresses that's not good news for Canucks fans and shouldn't be good news for Mike Gillis's job security.

The_Pauser wrote:Do you really think changing our 4C and depth defenseman is going to change anything? Oh wait, Richardson is slotted in as our 3C according to the Canucks. Yikes!

No, Gillman said he's their 10th forward, and could be the 3rd line C, depending on what happens at camp.

The_Pauser wrote:Don't kid yourself, this team has gotten worse. I expect further regression next year, and when a team that didn't win a single playoff game regresses that's not good news for Canucks fans and shouldn't be good news for Mike Gillis's job security.

So you're saying the Canucks will miss the playoffs?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Canucks miss the playoffs. We may still sneak in as a lower seed, but we won't get out of the first round. This is primed to be a wasted year because our GM is too attached to the core group that consists of proven losers.

Yep. The FA signings are good and in general I'm happy with the off season moves (or lack thereof in some cases). My main concern is still that our top 4 D is dysfunctional as it is currently constructed. Basically, there is no top 4 pairing with Edler that works. Unless the players in the top 4 change their ways, something needs to be done (of course, free agency is not the place to do it).

The_Pauser wrote:It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Canucks miss the playoffs. We may still sneak in as a lower seed, but we won't get out of the first round. This is primed to be a wasted year because our GM is too attached to the core group that consists of proven losers.

That's a wonderful narrative but I don't think it has anything to do with being attached to the core. It's about finding deals that help you now and in the future.

What's the point in trading Edler, Burrows or Kesler if you're not getting a piece in return that will be better than what you have?

Point is, making those types of trades are much more difficult than it seems.

When you fire the coach and bring in a guy who is known for doing all he can to squeeze the most out of what he has, it's rational to keep the majority of the core together to see what happens under a new direction.

If you're looking to make a trade for the sake of making a trade, you can do that pretty much whenever you want so why panic and re-build before you've seen how it works under Torts?

Having said that, I'm not sold on the Canucks being contenders yet next season unless two young players step up and Kesler/Booth remain healthy for the most part. Considering we haven't had much luck with injuries the past few years, I'm not all that confident Kesler and Booth will play a full season without at least a nagging injury.

It's an unknown season in many ways but I don't see a shitty team, nor do I think they will have much trouble making the playoffs. I will be surprised if the Canucks are outside the top 3 in their new conference, it's wether they have enough to make a deep playoff run that's the question.

coco_canuck wrote:It's an unknown season in many ways but I don't see a shitty team, nor do I think they will have much trouble making the playoffs. I will be surprised if the Canucks are outside the top 3 in their new conference, it's wether they have enough to make a deep playoff run that's the question.

Really Coco?

Anaheim, San Jose, LA, are all teams that are going to challenge the Canucks this season. Edmonton and Phoenix aren't going to be easy. Calgary is the only team that should be a gimme 2 points in our division. Combine that with however many games we play against Chicago, St. Louis, and Minnesota, and there are 6 teams that are at least this group's equal. 2 that could surprise, 3 if you count Nashville. That's 10 competitive teams in the West, and there Re only 2 division winners that automatically get a top seed come playoff time. I won't be even remotely surprised if this team misses the playoffs. Under Vigneault I would expect them to be golfing in early April. There are a couple of passengers on this team that have mailed it in too often, they should have been moved. I wont be surprised at all to see Bieksa and Edler being shopped by Christmas.....casual Kev likes his country club, and airhEdler will wilt when called out for his screw ups. They'll both want out. Personally I think there are 2 gaping holes in our top 4 on the blueline.....I hope I'm wrong.

If Torts his handing out defined roles to his guys then I expect that the young guys will step up if they can handle his dictator-like approach to accountability. Kesler, Hansen, Burrows, and the Sedins, will thrive. I'm unsure about Higgins and Booth.

Correction, top 3 teams from each division get a playoff spot. Misunderstood at first. I think it helps the Canucks chances now as a wild card getting a crossover berth to the other division, but I don't see us as favourites at all in our division.

Last edited by Meds on Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

coco_canuck wrote:I think the Weber signing is an improvement for this team's 6-7 spot compared to Ballard and Alberts playing out of position on the right side of the 3rd D-pair.

But not an improvement on Ballard playing on top 4 on his proper side. I like Weber for his shot-blocking but he's not in Ballard's league in terms of skill. Its a shame he never got a shot w/ Tortorella in town, I really think it would have worked out well. Ballard was easily our best skater on the back end and should have been the replacement for Ehrhoff since we already had him here waiting in the wings. Burning a year of Corrado's contract while Ballard ate popcorn in the booth was one of the stupidest moves AV ever made. Weber should be solid in the 6 spot though, Torts will like him.

Meds wrote:Anaheim, San Jose, LA, are all teams that are going to challenge the Canucks this season. Edmonton and Phoenix aren't going to be easy. Calgary is the only team that should be a gimme 2 points in our division. Combine that with however many games we play against Chicago, St. Louis, and Minnesota, and there are 6 teams that are at least this group's equal. 2 that could surprise, 3 if you count Nashville. That's 10 competitive teams in the West, and there Re only 2 division winners that automatically get a top seed come playoff time. I won't be even remotely surprised if this team misses the playoffs.

Hey, someone had to bring up and overrate Edmonton, Minnesota, Nashville and Phoenix.

The way the new divisions or conferences or whatever they want to call the four groupings are set up, the top 3 teams in each one make the playoffs and the other two are wildcards from either of the two groupings in the West and East respectively.

The Kings are better than the Canucks, then it's basically a wash between SJ & Van with Anaheim being right behind those two. Vancouver isn't the favourite in the group, but they should easily be top 3.

Meds wrote:If Torts his handing out defined roles to his guys then I expect that the young guys will step up if they can handle his dictator-like approach to accountability. Kesler, Hansen, Burrows, and the Sedins, will thrive. I'm unsure about Higgins and Booth.

Yes of course, we're going to play arm-chair psychologist and guess who has the best mental make-up to thrive under Torts.

ClamRussel wrote:But not an improvement on Ballard playing on top 4 on his proper side. I like Weber for his shot-blocking but he's not in Ballard's league in terms of skill. Its a shame he never got a shot w/ Tortorella in town, I really think it would have worked out well. Ballard was easily our best skater on the back end and should have been the replacement for Ehrhoff since we already had him here waiting in the wings. Burning a year of Corrado's contract while Ballard ate popcorn in the booth was one of the stupidest moves AV ever made. Weber should be solid in the 6 spot though, Torts will like him.

Considering how under-utilized Ballard was and how erratic play was last season, Weber should be an improvement on last season's Keith Ballard.

I think he'd play better under Torts but he'd still be on the outside of the top 4 looking in, and with 3 left-handed Ds in the top 4, two would have to go down before Ballard ever played 20 minutes in a game.

If the cap was still at 70M, I would have been all for keeping him around for 1 more year but it was just not realistic to do so this year.

Meds wrote:Anaheim, San Jose, LA, are all teams that are going to challenge the Canucks this season. Edmonton and Phoenix aren't going to be easy. Calgary is the only team that should be a gimme 2 points in our division. Combine that with however many games we play against Chicago, St. Louis, and Minnesota, and there are 6 teams that are at least this group's equal. 2 that could surprise, 3 if you count Nashville. That's 10 competitive teams in the West, and there Re only 2 division winners that automatically get a top seed come playoff time. I won't be even remotely surprised if this team misses the playoffs.

Hey, someone had to bring up and overrate Edmonton, Minnesota, Nashville and Phoenix.

The way the new divisions or conferences or whatever they want to call the four groupings are set up, the top 3 teams in each one make the playoffs and the other two are wildcards from either of the two groupings in the West and East respectively.

The Kings are better than the Canucks, then it's basically a wash between SJ & Van with Anaheim being right behind those two. Vancouver isn't the favourite in the group, but they should easily be top 3.

The Sharks and Canucks are going to be, essentially, the same teams that just met in the opening round of the playoffs. If I recall that didn't end well for Vancouver, but at least it ended quickly. We have a new coach, and we are banking heavily on him being able to rejuvenate this core. Anaheim is always a crapshoot with the Canucks, it's usually a lopsided affair one way or the other, but they are, on paper at least, our equal. You're right, LA is better.

I'm not sure how you think I'm overrating the Wild, Preds, or Oilers. Look at the fun we've had with them over the last couple of seasons. I'm not saying they're better than the Canucks, but they will be challenges. Edmonton is faster without a doubt, the wild are pretty evenly matched with us, the Preds simply lack scoring punch. When they've needed it though, puck luck and Edler and Bieksa screwups have been there to keep them around.....they also have one of the top 3 goaltenders in the NHL. Considering the surprises we see every year, it's foolish to write those teams off and pencil us in. That's just blind homerism, the Canucks are not "EASILY" top 3.

coco_canuck wrote:

Meds wrote:If Torts his handing out defined roles to his guys then I expect that the young guys will step up if they can handle his dictator-like approach to accountability. Kesler, Hansen, Burrows, and the Sedins, will thrive. I'm unsure about Higgins and Booth.

Yes of course, we're going to play arm-chair psychologist and guess who has the best mental make-up to thrive under Torts.

Not my area of expertise, so I'll decline comment.

Judging by the work ethic we saw from the players game in and game out, and their comments before and after Tortorella was hired, and based on what we've seen from them over the last few years. You don't need to play arm-chair psychologist to observe that. Based on your "lack of expertise" we probably should never attribute Edler's mistakes to be brain cramps, we should just assume that he's overrated. Besides, it's not just who's going to thrive under Torts, it's also who is going to, most likely, have the more difficult time with the loss of their country club.

Last edited by Meds on Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Some folks are also forgetting the shortened season last year, and the freak-show that was our roster. Healthy teams do well in the sprint to the playoffs. The Canucks were a mess, and still made the playoffs rather handedly.

Most of our season was played without a second line (Booth and Kesler missed significant time). Our third line centre was shut down early in the season. There was also the constant goaltender controversy that was undoubtedly a distraction for everyone. It was a circus.

The Canucks of the past couple seasons have generally been one of the more consistent teams in the league. The shortened season, and the roster mess, worked against them all year IMO.

Given a full 82 game season, I think the consistency of the team will be apparent again. I think another bonus will be the people that are EXPECTING them to fail. Set the bar lower, and it'll be easier to overachieve. I think if we slide under the radar a bit, it will help us manage expectations, referees, and opponents.

ClamRussel wrote:But not an improvement on Ballard playing on top 4 on his proper side. I like Weber for his shot-blocking but he's not in Ballard's league in terms of skill. Its a shame he never got a shot w/ Tortorella in town, I really think it would have worked out well. Ballard was easily our best skater on the back end and should have been the replacement for Ehrhoff since we already had him here waiting in the wings. Burning a year of Corrado's contract while Ballard ate popcorn in the booth was one of the stupidest moves AV ever made. Weber should be solid in the 6 spot though, Torts will like him.

Considering how under-utilized Ballard was and how erratic play was last season, Weber should be an improvement on last season's Keith Ballard.

So now we play arm-chair scout and speculate on how a guy with only a few seasons between the AHL and NHL, and whom we've seen play very little, will be an improvement on Ballard?

coco_canuck wrote:I think he'd play better under Torts but he'd still be on the outside of the top 4 looking in, and with 3 left-handed Ds in the top 4, two would have to go down before Ballard ever played 20 minutes in a game.

Oh, sorry, we'll play arm-chair psychologist instead and speculate on how a guy would probably play better under Torts.....